KAILASH NATH BHARGAVA Vs. BAL SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision applications arise out of the same civil execution case No. 122 of 1964. The facts and the points involved in the two cases are similar and, therefore, they will be disposed of by one order.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these - THE opposite party No. 1 Bal Swaroop son of Bishan Swaroop filed a suit for rent and ejectment against Jankilal and Baluram opposite parties Nos. 2 & 3, in respect of property bearing A. M. C. No. VI/94 and obtained a decree on 15. 4. 1964 for ejectment of Baluram and Jankilal from the suit premises on the basis of a compromise. It may be mentioned here that the suit property initially belonged to Shri Bhag Chand Soni from whom Baluram and Jankilal had obtained a lease. Bal Swaroop subsequently purchased the property and brought the suit as transferee of the original landlord. THE decree-holder applied for execution of the decree and wanted delivery of possession of the suit property. Chandra Bhan and Kailash Nath Bhargava, who are the petitioners in the two revision applications and who are in separate actual possession of some portion of the property, offered resistance to the delivery of the possession to the decree-holder. THE decree-holder then submitted an application under O. 21 r 97, Civil P. C. against the petitioner complaining of resistance and obstruction in delivery of possession. THE decree-holder alleged that Kailash Nath Bhargava and Chandra Bhan Bhargava were sub tenants of the judgment-debtors and were bound by the decree. THE reply of the petitioners was that they were in possession of the premises as direct tenants from Shri Bhag Chand Soni and consequently, of the decree-holder and could not be ejected in execution of the decree against the judgment-debtors. It was alleged that the Judgment debtor were simply collectors of rent from them on behalf of the landlord. It was also alleged that the decree against the judgment-debtors was collusive and tainted with fraud. THE Execution Court, after enquiry, held that the petitioners were the sub-tenants of the judgment-debtors and were not direct tenants of the decree-holder and that they were bound by the decree against the judgment-debtors and that they had no just cause to resist or obstruct the delivery of possession. THE Court, therefore, ordered that a warrant for possession be issued and a note be made in the warrant that the said persons are bound by the decree passed against Baluram and Jankilal and so, they be dispossessed and the possession of the premises in their occupation be delivered to the decree-holder. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed separate appeals. THEse appeals were heard by the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeals was taken on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the orders were not appealable. THE preliminary objection prevailed with the appellate court, and the appeals were dismissed, as not maintainable. THE petitioners have filed the present revision applications.